IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.407/Del/2011
Assessment Year: 2004-05
Master Akshay Bansal,
C/o RRA Taxindia,
D-28, South Extension,
Part-1,
New Delhi – 110 049.
(Appellant)
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-37(1),
New Delhi.
(Respondent)
ITA No.408/Del/2011
Assessment Year: 2004-05
Miss Ayushi Bansal,
C/o RRA Taxindia,
D-28, South Extension,
Part-1,
New Delhi – 110 049.
(Appellant)
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-37(1),
New Delhi.
(Respondent)
Appellants by: Dr.Rakesh Gupta and Shri Tarun Kumar, Advocates.
Respondent by: Shri Bhim Singh, DR.
ORDER
PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VP:
These two appeals by the assessees are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 1st October, 2010 for the assessment year 2004-05.
2. The assessees have raised various grounds of appeal. However, they are all against the assessment of `2,51,000/- in the hands of each assessee on protective basis.
3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The facts of the case are that both the assessees are minor children of Shri Kamal Piyush. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, Master Akshay Bansal had received the gift of `2,51,000/- from Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta and Miss Ayushi Bansal had received the gift of `2,51,000/- from Shri Mukesh Gupta. The Assessing Officer has noted that since both these assessees are minor children of Shri Kamal Piyush, therefore, their income is to be assessed in the hands of Shri Kamal Piyush under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, he made the assessment of `2,51,000/- each on protective basis in the case of both the above assessees. On appeal, learned CIT(A) held that the protective addition in the hands of these two assessees are not required but finally, he held that the appeals of the assessees are dismissed. Therefore, the assessees are aggrieved. The relevant finding of the learned CIT(A) in this regard reads as under:-
“6. In the asstt. Order, the A.O. has stated that “during the course of asstt proceedings in the case of Sh. Kamal Piyush it was gathered that the assessee is minor, the above income will be clubbed u/s 64 in the case of Sh. Kamal Piyush”. In his submissions, the appellant has also stated that Master Akshay Bansal and Miss Ayushi Bansal are minors. In view of these facts, their income is liable to be added in the hands of the appellant. Since the addition on substantive basis, has been confirmed in the hands of Shri Kamal Piyush, the father of Master Akshay Bansal, the protective addition in the hands of Master Akshay Bansal is not required.
7. With these remarks, the appeal is dismissed.”
4. Similar finding is recorded in the hands of Miss Ayushi Bansal. That the learned CIT(A) has arrived at the conclusion that the protective addition made in the hands of both the above assessees is not required. The above finding of learned CIT(A) has been duly accepted by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the assessee has stated that the only addition made in the hands of both the above assessees was the protective addition of `2,51,000/- each. The learned CIT(A) has held that the above additions are not required in their hands. Therefore, as a consequence, in paragraph 7 of the learned CIT(A)’s order, the final conclusion should have been that the appeal is allowed.
5. After considering the arguments of both the sides, we agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The only addition made in the hands of both the above minor children of Shri Kamal Piyush was the protective addition of `2,51,000/- which was added on substantive
basis in the hands of Shri Kamal Piyush. As per the finding of learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5, he held that the above additions are required to be made on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Kamal Piyush and in paragraph 6, he held that the protective addition in the hands of Master Akshay Bansal and Miss Ayushi Bansal is not required. With this finding in paragraph 6, the entire addition made in the hands of both the above assessees stood deleted. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has in fact allowed the appeal of both the above assessees. We,
therefore, uphold the finding of learned CIT(A) in paragraph 6 of his order and further hold that once the learned CIT(A) has already deleted the entire addition made in the hands of these two assessees, he should have concluded that the assessees’ appeals are allowed. With this remark, the assessees’ appeals are disposed of.
6. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are deemed to be allowed pro tanto.
Decision pronounced in the open Court on 17th May, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
(I.C.SUDHIR) (G.D.AGRAWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Dated: 17.05.2013
VK.
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant: 1. Master Akshay Bansal, C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi – 110 049.
2. Miss Ayushi Bansal, C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi – 110 049.
3. Respondent : Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), New Delhi.
4. CIT
5. CIT(A)
6. DR, ITAT
Assistant Registrar
